Francis Scott Key Bridge (I-695) complete collapse after large ship hits it

[Max Rockatansky]

Dan's second round of drone photos of the Key Bridge site posted on the Gribblenation Facebook page:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02wVeTpMiAexACDp2iwBvvgDL2LKRptRg4eokFX9nucpn5snj3oHgxH5TsHWCWsA6Cl&id=100063655972258&mibextid=wwXIfr

The caption reads:

"More scenes from the site of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, MD from this past weekend as the first operations are now underway on site on the path to building a new Outer Harbor Crossing for the Baltimore Beltway (I-695).

Removal of the existing bridge superstructure is in progress, with the old concrete deck removed from the surviving spans and steel girders now being removed from the Hawkins Point approach. Demolition of the existing bridge is the first step in the process of opening up the site to the greater influx of equipment and material still to come, as well as helping streamline navigation in the harbor in the area of the bridge site for construction, commercial, and pleasure traffic.

Completion of the new bridge is expected at the end of 2028, an aggressive timeline without question, especially when this large-scale project was dropped on everyone's plate without notice or expectation. That's one of the things the Facebook trolls who complain about things taking so long to get going don't realize. Projects like this take years to plan and years to line up, between contractors, engineers, and material suppliers due to the complexities involved both on and off-site. For this project to be underway with significant work in progress already on this date is a remarkable achievement given all of those factors and all of the obstacles that typically stand in the way of fast-tracking such large projects. And it certainly got started a lot faster than it would have if a tunnel had been the preferred solution from Day 1."

And FWIW that comment about Facebook trolls is spot on.  There has been some absolutely vile but not unexpected takes I've had to delete out on both posts.  The mainstream platform social media stuff that goes on off forum makes this place seem so vanilla by comparison.

[Beltway]

I've got something else to add to my website article.

A seemingly knowledgeable but shadowy poster on the project social media page said:
"The federal government approved 100% funding last year. "

I replied:
If so then why not build a Cadillac Design? Six lanes (3 each way) and a suspension span of 5,000 feet to make sure no recklessly handled ships can hit a main pier and knock down the bridge.

He replied:
That was the best proposal given during the RFP.

If you had a better design you should have submitted one.

I replied:
Best proposal by what criteria? How was the public ever engaged in the process? What other alternatives were proposed?

Do you think that I am a heavy construction contractor that builds large bridges and tunnels??

Some posters [on the social media site] have argued that the federal legislation has no cap on the amount authorized, has no limit on the potential designs utilized, that even if it balloons to $5 billion per some recent estimates, that emergency powers give great flexibility, that the federal funding would still be 100%. That is quite possible according to my reading of the legislation. [[what it says about Section 120 and 125 under Title 23 may refute my more restricted interpretation of a month ago]]

If so that is all the more reason to build a "Cadillac Design" that will last for at least 100 years. MDTA is calling it a 100 year design.

That means invulnerable to ship strike, and ship conflagration or explosion.

Therefore -- span the entire estuary with a suspension span, or build a modern hazmat-capable tunnel.

The fact that they didn't move forward with an accelerated NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is one of the most glaring missed opportunities in this entire saga. NEPA acceleration was feasible. After the collapse, MDTA had a legitimate case for invoking emergency streamlining, especially under 23 CFR § 771.129 and CEQ's emergency NEPA provisions. Agencies like FHWA have historically allowed tiered or compressed review timelines for critical infrastructure replacements -- especially when funded federally and affecting interstate commerce. Early scoping, preexisting data from past studies (like the original tunnel plans), and immediate stakeholder engagement could've shaved 12-18 months off the timeline and had a completed and signed NEPA FEIS and ROD (Record of Decision) by mid- to late-2025.

He replied back:
The public was engaged. You just didn't pay attention.
You just like complaining more than research.

I replied:
I have been "paying attention" since March 2024. The public was not meaningfully engaged.

Was there a location public hearing with a public comment period? No.

Was there a design public hearing with a public comment period? No.

Was there a NEPA EIS? No.

I've done plenty of research --
"Baltimore Outer Harbor Crossing Replacement Proposal" --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor_Proposed.html
"Francis Scott Key Bridge (Outer Harbor Crossing)" --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Outer_Harbor.html
"Key Bridge Collapse: Emotional Infrastructure" -
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Key-Bridge-Emotional-Infrastructure.html
"Sunshine Skyway Disaster" -
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Sunshine-Skyway-Disaster.html

. . . . .
2 days have gone by and he has not replied.

[Rothman]

Wait, you wanted an accelerated EIS to streamline the process, when the categorical exclusion (which is still NEPA compliant) streamlined it even moreso...?

[Beltway]

Wait, you wanted an accelerated EIS to streamline the process, when the categorical exclusion (which is still NEPA compliant) streamlined it even moreso...?

The FHWA defines a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX or CE) as a class of actions that "do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment." While it may include environmental documentation, it does not require alternatives analysis, public hearings, or full impact modeling -- unlike a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

That's not just rhetorical-- it's a precise indictment of how CATEX can be used to bypass NEPA's core safeguard: public vetting of alternatives.

I used words like "acceleration and 'emergency streamlining' and 'compressed review timelines'." I wasn't suggesting deleting any step, just using methods to greatly speed up the process as compared to normal project development -- if they want to make the case that they can't wait for the typical length of time that an EIS takes for a normal project. 

[Rothman]

Projects that are categorical exclusions (95% of NYSDOT projects) are still required to do public outreach.  The designation of the replacement as a categorical exclusion is wholly appropriate due to the bridge being built on the same, previous alignment, thus limiting environmental effects.  Keep in mind FHWA concurs with the designation.

Of course the project is still soliciting public comment on their webpage...

https://keybridgerebuild.com/connect/

[Beltway]

Projects that are categorical exclusions (95% of NYSDOT projects) are still required to do public outreach.  The designation of the replacement as a categorical exclusion is wholly appropriate due to the bridge being built on the same, previous alignment, thus limiting environmental effects.  Keep in mind FHWA concurs with the designation.
Of course the project is still soliciting public comment on their webpage...
https://keybridgerebuild.com/connect/

That is not the same thing as a DEIS and public hearings and public comments being formally recorded in the DEIS.

They don't respond to that interface -- over the last year I have tried 7 or 8 times, no response.

They have a few seemingly industry knowledgeable but shadowy posters that engage opposition on the project social media page. You never see an official name or agency name on the post.

Granted there is a lot of nonsense posted like "China would have it rebuilt in 6 months," "the governor is pocketing the money," "it should have withstood the hit," etc. But numbers of valid questions are raised as well and don't get answers.

As far as deciding in the first week on a "bridge being built on the same, previous alignment" that is the whole problem. That bypasses any sort of discussion of alternatives, and I have gone into great detail on my website article about the extraordinary factors surrounding this situation that called for a full NEPA EIS. There are multiple highway and maritime issues here.

If they are going to get 100% federal funding above normal state allocations, they need to do better than this.

One of those knowledgeable but shadowy posters queried me "if a container ship (for example) knocked down the Golden Gate Bridge, do you really think the federal government should not pay 100% of the cost to replace it"?

I have rethought some of what I have said before -- he may have a good point -- that may be appropriate. Granted GGB is the only bridge over the Golden Gate.

But there should be separate congressional legislation to handle something like this where there is a highway disaster that far exceeds the $100 million figure in previous legislation.

Recommendation: Pass framework legislation to conduct a full NEPA EIS at emergency speed, allow 100% federal funding with the stipulation that the new facility will be toll-free.

[Rothman]

You're sounding conspiratorial about commenters on a social media page.  Not sure why you're putting so much stock in them.  Comments sections aren't known as bastions of truth.

Far too late to start the EIS process now and such a drastic change at this point would need to be approved by FHWA, which would find such a request quite bizarre at his point.  MD has the go-ahead; the project is on its way.

[Beltway]

You're sounding conspiratorial about commenters on a social media page.  Not sure why you're putting so much stock in them.  Comments sections aren't known as bastions of truth.
Far too late to start the EIS process now and such a drastic change at this point would need to be approved by FHWA, which would find such a request quite bizarre at his point.  MD has the go-ahead; the project is on its way.

I agree about official social media pages in general. Not so serious.

They still don't have the 70% design completion that would allow issuance of a Construction Notice to Proceed, nor a final cost estimate. If it is much higher than the original bookmark (some have suggested $5 billion), all bets are off as to FHWA approval.

They also don't yet have any design for a protection system. It needs to be built before main pier construction begins. No fun if they have piles driven and footer built and pier segments rising -- and then a recklessly handled huge ship wipes it all out and fouls the channel and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost construction.

[Rothman]

Nope, that's not how federal funding works.  When talking about 100% federal funding, that just means there's no state share.  Given the importance of the project, funding will simply be increased to match any overages and "advanced constructed" until the obligation limitation is available to obligate the funding.

That said, NY doesn't allow progressive design-build.  That fact chased away larger contractors from the I-81 Viaduct Project; they played hardball to get NY to allow the same contractor to scope, design and construct a project and they lost.  I mean, allowing a firm to do all that allows them to dictate the cost of a project. 

But anyway, to me, if it's anything like design-build, where multiple phases are authorized up front (in progressive design-build, literally all phases), which makes sense to me given the demolition of the original bridge would be considered part of the construction phase, then FHWA has essentially authorized the entire project and there's only a less-than-1% chance of anything coming up for them to rescind the funding.  MD would have to really screw things up for that to happen and, given FHWA's environmental approvals, they have not.

Come to think of it, any increase to the project would be a simple modification to the funding in FMIS from here on out, so I don't see any real scenario where "all bets are off" from here on out.

But, as before, time will just tell if Beltway's fears of another boat strike are warranted.  Certainly other test pile measures on other major bridge projects around the country followed the same protocols as are being followed here without issue...Again, I trust the engineers working directly on the project over armchair critics.  Sure, good questions are asked from such, but there's indeed a point where such questions are simply asked and answered...

[vdeane]

Finally, an update that isn't a Beltway argument (yet).  Maryland released new renderings.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2025/10/what-baltimores-new-key-bridge-will-look-like/

[sprjus4]

Finally, an update that isn't a Beltway argument (yet).  Maryland released new renderings.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2025/10/what-baltimores-new-key-bridge-will-look-like/

Don't worry, I'm sure there's something wrong with them.

-

That said, finally a bridge with full shoulders (looking at the recent US-301 bridge replacement with no shoulders).

[Beltway]

Finally, an update that isn't a Beltway argument (yet).  Maryland released new renderings.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2025/10/what-baltimores-new-key-bridge-will-look-like/

UNCH

[Plutonic Panda]

Finally, an update that isn't a Beltway argument (yet).  Maryland released new renderings.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2025/10/what-baltimores-new-key-bridge-will-look-like/

Don't worry, I'm sure there's something wrong with them.

-

That said, finally a bridge with full shoulders (looking at the recent US-301 bridge replacement with no shoulders).

I still think the bridge should be built to have 3 lanes in the future. Yes I know the approaches are 2 lanes but those could and should be expanded as well.

[NE2]

Finally, an update that isn't a Beltway argument (yet).  Maryland released new renderings.
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2025/10/what-baltimores-new-key-bridge-will-look-like/

UNCH

South Carerdddd

[vdeane]

I had to look up what "unch" means.  Urban Dictionary says it's a particular piece of skin on the male body.  I did not need to know that.

[Strider]

Finally, an update that isn't a Beltway argument (yet).  Maryland released new renderings.

https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2025/10/what-baltimores-new-key-bridge-will-look-like/

So it is just 2 lanes in each direction just like the original, but with higher clearance and shoulders being added. Will the bridge be wide enough for future additional travel lanes?

[Beltway]

I had to look up what "unch" means.  Urban Dictionary says it's a particular piece of skin on the male body.  I did not need to know that.

"UNCH" in the stock market listing pages typically means "unchanged" -- indicating that a stock's price hasn't moved from its previous close. It's a shorthand used in financial listings to quickly show that there's been no gain or loss.

That's a classic Urban Dictionary detour -- searching for a stock market term and ending up with an anatomy surprise. "UNCH" in financial contexts just means "unchanged," but Urban Dictionary loves to thread the unexpected, often with definitions that are obscure, slangy, or downright vomic.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had to look up what "unch" means.  Urban Dictionary says it's a particular piece of skin on the male body.  I did not need to know that.

First place I looked also.  I figured that wasn't what Beltway meant but I thought the Urban Dictionary definition was funny and kept it to myself.

[Beltway]

then FHWA has essentially authorized the entire project and there's only a less-than-1% chance of anything coming up for them to rescind the funding.  MD would have to really screw things up for that to happen and, given FHWA's environmental approvals, they have not.

The previous administration and their FHWA leadership and Congress authorized the project.

There have been enough questions raised since then and enough lack of definition over cost and protection systems that it certainly could be revised or capped.

If say the final cost estimate needed before issuing CNTP is $3.5 billion, then it could be held pending major review of requirements definition.

We will just have to see what develops over the next few months.

Come to think of it, any increase to the project would be a simple modification to the funding in FMIS from here on out, so I don't see any real scenario where "all bets are off" from here on out.

As far as examples of abandoning expensive underway infrastructure projects due to sudden changes in priorities, look no further than MD I-170 and DC I-266 Three Sisters Bridge and the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. There are numerous others.

But, as before, time will just tell if Beltway's fears of another boat strike are warranted.  Certainly other test pile measures on othr major bridge projects around the country followed the same protocols as are being followed here without issue...Again, I trust the engineers working directly on the project over armchair critics.  Sure, good questions are asked from such, but there's indeed a point where such questions are simply asked and answered...

There is that Appeal to Authority once again. There are plenty of current and former industry professionals, environmental groups, urban planners, and infrastructure watchdogs -- that are watching this.

It is not the engineers that I distrust -- it is the agency managers and elected officials that impose their design -- that need to be watched like a hawk.

That line "time will just tell if Beltway's fears of another boat strike are warranted" threads a quiet skepticism into the infrastructure discourse. It echoes a familiar MDTA posture: defer risk to time, sidestep forensic accountability, and let rhetorical fog obscure structural vulnerability.

This kind of phrasing often surfaces when institutional actors want to acknowledge public concern without committing to structural reform. It threads plausible deniability into the narrative: if nothing happens, the fears were overblown; if something does, it was unforeseeable. But as we've documented, the forensic record of bridge vulnerability, vessel clearance logic, and phased rollout neglect is already archived. The question isn't whether fears are warranted -- it's whether stewardship will override spectacle.

Like ... why have all those abort modes for the Shuttle? All those expensive safety systems on airliners? Norfolk/Hampton Roads tunnels?

Because when failure isn't just probable, but catastrophic, you don't gamble with "time will tell." You build abort modes, redundant systems, and hardened infrastructure because the cost of not doing so is legacy-ending.

Abort modes aren't pessimism, they're stewardship. Shuttle crews trained for dozens of failure scenarios because the margin was razor-thin and a near-irreplicable national asset and crew was at risk.

Airliners carry hundreds of lives across hostile environments. Redundancy isn't luxury -- it's legacy protection.

Norfolk area tunnels traverse beneath shipping lanes and storm surge zones. Their safety systems aren't optional -- they're the difference between survivability and mass casualty.

From the very first launch, the Space Shuttle was equipped with multiple abort modes: RTLS (Return to Launch Site), TAL (Transoceanic Abort Landing), AOA (Abort Once Around), and Abort to Orbit (ATO). These weren't tacked on after a failure -- they were baked in from day one, because NASA understood that failure wasn't just possible -- it was inevitable without layered contingencies.

The main reason the Vandenburg AFB shuttle site was never used and abandoned was because only brief and very limited abort modes were possible due to the geography of the region.

But we don't say "time will tell" when designing airliners. We build in redundant hydraulics, terrain avoidance systems, and fire suppression because the cost of failure is measured in hundreds of lives and billions of dollars and legacy.

The Shuttle's abort modes, like the safety systems in aviation and maritime infrastructure, represent a moral posture: stewardship over spectacle, foresight over deferral.

When we fail to apply that same logic to bridges and ports -- when we treat hardened piers or vessel detection as optional extras, we're not saving money; we're mortgaging public safety. The Key Bridge collapse wasn't a mythic anomaly. It was a forensic trigger, a call to embed abort logic into our infrastructure mindset. Because in every domain where failure is catastrophic, the only responsible posture is to build as if it's coming, and to ensure we're ready when it does. Anything less is rhetorical drift disguised as prudence.

There are 5 major shipping channel crossings under construction now in the U.S. and none of them have piers in deep (or even shallow) waters.
1) LA I-710 bridge - just completed
2) Corpus Christie harbor bridge
3) Gordie Howe international bridge
4) HRBT Expansion tunnels
5) CBBT tunnel Thimble Shoal

Two more potentially under construction in 5 to 10 years
1) CBBT tunnel Chesapeake Channel
2) MMMBT expansion

Any official body that builds deep water piers near a shipping channel needs serious psychotherapeutic professional counseling.

[Rothman]

I stand by my statement that Beltway doesn't understand how federal financing or FHWA funding authorization, especially in terms of which phases are authorized and FHWA's position once they are.  This project will never just be abandoned for cost reasons for the reasons I mentioned already and which he evidently still did not understand given his response above.

He also misunderstands who designs projects and the standards against which engineers must design such.  The idea that non-engineers are driving the actual design is ludicrous to me.  So, despite Beltway's long misinterpretation of what I meant by "time will tell," my real intent was to say, "We shall see if Beltway's fears are warranted against the whole host of real experts working on the project and the tested standards that such must adhere to."  Just seems that Beltway doesn't understand that his criticisms aren't limited to the particular project or team or individuals or a certain policy or specification, but for what he fears to come to fruition, he's really criticizing the entire system from his armchair. 

So, sure, I'll place my bet on the engineers working on the bridge and the standards which have been developed over decades of experience and testing rather than on someone sitting on the outside.  That's what U mean when "time will tell" -- time will tell if Beltway's tilting at the windmills of the entire system are warranted -- and I very much doubt it will.

[Scott5114]

I had to look up what "unch" means.  Urban Dictionary says it's a particular piece of skin on the male body.  I did not need to know that.

It's short for "unchecked", referring to a square on a crossword puzzle which is only part of one word, so one cannot check whether it's correct by using the intersecting word. Unches are considered bad form in puzzle construction.

That's a classic Urban Dictionary detour -- searching for a stock market term and ending up with an anatomy surprise. "UNCH" in financial contexts just means "unchanged," but Urban Dictionary loves to thread the unexpected, often with definitions that are obscure, slangy, or downright vomic.

GPT-5's outputs are so terse compared to version 4. I'm guessing that has something to do with the fact that version 5 has the ability to pull in the results of search engine queries. Unfortunately, that makes it time out on API requests sometimes, which is why the guy who runs the GPT bot on the wiki discord ended up rolling it back to the v4 model, which has a lot more "personality" (even if it's a kind of cheesy personality).

[LilianaUwU]

isnt UNCH what the kids these days say to refer to someone who's old

[Rothman]

isnt UNCH what the kids these days say to refer to someone who's old

I had not taken into account the alternative "unc" pronunciation.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm just amused that I am at such an in-between age that I had to look up what the following meant this past year:

- UNCH
- tommyrot
- dog's breakfast
- Skibidi
- Rizz
- 6-7

[LilianaUwU]

- 6-7

I'm much closer to the target age and I still don't understand most brainrot. I think most of it is nonsense for the sake of being nonsensical.